Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well established that the question of whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Matter of Gruber v City of New York, 156 A.D.2d 450; Matter of Fast v. County of Broome, 151 A.D.2d 930; Matter of Halperin v. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 461). Although the plaintiff's excuses for his failure to timely serve a late notice of claim are not overly persuasive, "the absence of an acceptable excuse for the delay is not necessarily fatal to the application" (Montalto v. Town of Harrison, 151 A.D.2d 652, 653). The facts underlying the claim became known to the defendant within 32 days after the expiration of the 90-day period, and the defendant failed to establish that it would be prejudiced by the granting of the application (see, Matter of Edwards v. Town of Delaware, 115 A.D.2d 205; Hutchins v. Village of Tupper Lake Hous. Auth., 72 A.D.2d 875; Segretto v. Town of Oyster Bay, 66 A.D.2d 796).
Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion (see, Simmons v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 377). Eiber, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.